Hate Crimes

The Washington Post published an article yesterday with the most recent hate crime statistics. The primary findings, though depressing, were not surprising:

Racial prejudice, most often directed at black people, was behind more than half the nation’s 7,400 reported hate crime incidents in 2003, the FBI said yesterday.

Reports of hate crimes motivated by anti-black bias totaled 2,548 in 2003, almost double the total hate crimes against all other racial groups….

The overall total of 7,489 hate crime incidents reported in 2003 was slightly more than the 7,462 reported in 2002, the lowest number since 1994. Race bias was behind 3,844 of the 2003 cases.

A closer reading, however, suggests several questions that the article did not address. For example, race bias was behind 3,844 cases, but anti-black bias totaled only 2,548 cases. Which raises the question: What exactly was the nature of the racial bias in the 1,298 cases motivated by racial bias (34% of the total) where the victims were not black? Who were the perpetrators and who were the victims?

“Of all known offenders,” the article also reports with another intriguing statistic, “62 percent were white and 18 percent were black.” Since according to the 2000 census whites made up 75.1% of the U.S. population and blacks were 12.3%, should we not conclude that whites are significantly “underrepresented” and blacks “overrepresented” among the perpetrators of hate crimes? One would think that this rather startling conclusion might deserve some mention in the article.

Say What? (8)

  1. nobody important November 24, 2004 at 11:06 am | | Reply

    Pointing out those intriguing data anomalies breaks the narrative. Shhhh.

  2. John from OK November 24, 2004 at 8:52 pm | | Reply

    “Racial prejudice, most often directed at black people, was behind more than half ….”

    That paragraph gives the immediate impression that anti-Black acts make up the majority of hate crimes. But really we are multiplying fractions: “most often” times “more than half”. Their own numbers indicate anti-Black crimes make up about a third of all hate crimes. WaPo could have initially stated it that way.

    BTW, were the 3,100 9/11 victims added to the 2001 totals?

  3. Dave Huber November 25, 2004 at 1:15 pm | | Reply

    Or just the reverse, Cobra — you don’t want to hear about P.R. when it includes highly negative items — like crime.

    Besides, I think you’re missing John’s little tongue-in-cheek about P.R. …

  4. Cobra November 25, 2004 at 1:46 pm | | Reply

    Dave,

    I’m all for racial proportionate representation, as you know. What’s your excuse for using it when you claim to detest it so? This is just another example of the hypocrisy of the anti-preference movement. You, Dave of all people, should know full well that the “1.7 million interracial violent acts” comprises everything from homicide to a white fan throwing a beer cup on Ron Artest. Not all of those are “hate crimes.”

    Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving, by the way!

    –Cobra

  5. The Precinct Chair November 26, 2004 at 12:01 pm | | Reply

    The thing is, an after the fact analysis that shows an “out of proportion” result is not about proportional representation. It is rather an analysis of what actually is. And if you are having a gropu commit crimes out of proportion to their percentage of the population, it is not a call for other groups to be allowed to commit more crimes — it is grounds for examining what is going on.

    Now notice the huge percentage of interracial crimes commited by blacks that are not classified as hate crimes. I’d like to know why they are not so classified? Was the victim chosen based upon criteria other than race? Was the race of the victim unknown to the perpetrator? Or does a black criminal going into a wealthy, predominantly white neighborhood to commit a crime constitute a crime based upon economics, not race, no matter how many racial slurs are difected at the victim?

  6. Cobra November 26, 2004 at 2:27 pm | | Reply

    The fact that Dave is not mentioning in his post is that even though there were allegedly 1.7 million interracial crimes, there were over 11 million total crimes. Apparently, the vast majority of violent crime is INTRARACIAL, and not INTERRACIAL. These omissions would lead the non-researching, anti-intellectual out there to believe that there are ravenous hordes of minorities (mostly blacks) waiting to rabidly pounce on innocent, unsuspecting white citizens, when in reality, whites have more to fear from other whites.

    But back to the SUBJECT, which is HATE CRIME. I listed in my previous post the FBI’s definition of a “hate crime.” It is very specific, and can be easily distinguished from the random

    scenarios The Precinct mentions.

    –Cobra

  7. Cobra November 26, 2004 at 10:22 pm | | Reply

    Dave,

    I never claimed the FBI was perfect. In fact, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was in my estimation, not much better than any other anti-minority group. However, this post was started by John based upon FBI statistics, so I wanted to stay within the established parameters.

    The apparent logic is to use the hate crime label when evidence is obvious. A swaztika painted on a synogogue door, a burning cross on an interracial family’s lawn, or a teen gang chasing a homosexual couple down the street with bats are pretty good indicators of a possible hate crime.

    I would AGREE WITH YOU, Dave (mark this date down) that the LANGUAGE in some of the hate crimes statutes could be refined.

    As far as criminal targets are concerned, the mugger who wants the most cash will probably select the white guy who LOOKS like he has money, before the mugging the homeless looking old white guy pushing a shopping cart full of bottles.

    Maybe it’s a “profiling” thing.

    –Cobra

  8. Dave Huber November 27, 2004 at 8:18 am | | Reply

    Ugh. Looks like many of my comments were caught in John’s anti-spam sweep.

    Cobra: Date is so marked.

Say What?